Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Freya1977]

Hmm, I could have sworn that OP had said that he hadn't been back to the scene of the crime since that day...

I seem to remember that too....

 

[AlexUK]

Roux looking most dischuffed...... Tee hee!

 

[liesbeth]

I think what experts are supposed to do and what they may do can be very different things. There have been expert witnesses who have apparently been willing to risk both their careers and reputations to mislead the court about evidence that could be damaging to the defence. One of the better known examples of this is forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee. It was ruled that Lee intentionally withheld evidence from prosecutors in the Phil Spector case. Well before that case, Lee was one of very few such scientists to be a household name.

I'm not stating, of course, that this is true of Wollmarans and much appreciate your interpretation - I really have no doubt his reputation precedes him - just pointing out that there are indeed a few bad apples in a bushel of (likely) ethically sound expert witnesses. Some people, even professionals deemed by the court to be worthy of an 'expert witness tag', really will sell their testimony to the highest bidder or the case with the most air time.

All MOO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

I agree with you, BritsKate. Thanks for pointing this out.

When I said "So, in theory, this means that an expert must give all information he gathers to the court. No matter who is paying. Wolmarans is giving his expert testimony," I thought when I said "in theory" it was clear that I meant experts are supposed to be unbiased, but that it is not always the case in reality.

Reading it again I can see that I should have phrased it differently.

My apologies. English is my third language. And sometimes I forget to think in just one language. I will try to be more careful in future. Thank you again for the help. It's nice to know you've got my back.

 

[lithgow1]

Hmm, I could have sworn that OP had said that he hadn't been back to the scene of the crime since that day...

Yep - either he or his reps have said that. Definitely.

 

[JudgeJudi]

W says for completeness sake he was asked to supervise the test. He's not a sound expert. This was only done due to the You Tube thing. He was requested by the DT to do it. He's not a sound expert.
Nel wants him to focus on the questions. Dixon was excused on 16 April. W took Dixon for a beer at the IPA shortly after he retired from court. W saw him again maybe once but can't remember when.

 

[zwiebel]

W: I just thought I'd take him for a beer....

N: Was that the only time you saw him?

W: I can't remember...I think he was once at my house. I think he just popped in to say hello..

I think they are talking about a policeman??

 

[ColonelMustard]

Roux is slumped down in his seat, with his head in his hand, looking like he's eaten a bad scone during the tea break that's just hitting him, now. Get the man some Maalox.

 

[Really?]

Rah roh.....he just gave M'Lady the 'two fingers up' and his other hand quickly grabbed it away........fa..hahaha

 

[Emz73]

I seem to remember that too....

Can some clever person look it up??

 

[supernovaNic]

Hmm, I could have sworn that OP had said that he hadn't been back to the scene of the crime since that day...

That's what I thought too, and if so, why didn't Nel get all excited when he heard it?

 

[JudgeJudi]

W says there's a possibility he met Dixon again. He just popped into his house too.
W says it's highly improbable that they discussed his evidence.
W says there's a possibility he changed his report after speaking to Dixon.
Nel says you wouldn't take Dixon's evidence on ballistics at all - No.

 

[sleuth-d-]

dixon getting another bashing,

 

[zwiebel]

N: After his evidence, did you change anything in your report?

W: It's possible....but Mr Dixon is not a ballistic expert so I wouldn't take his evidence into account...

N: So should the court disregard Mr Dixon's evidence too? If you won't take it into account as he's not an ballistic expert, should the court ignore it too?

 

[AlexUK]

Awwww...Oscar is bored....yawning muchly!

 

[Viper]

Capt. Kangaroo is in trouble. Mr. Nel is relentless. This is fun!!!

 

[jay-jay]

W: I just thought I'd take him for a beer....

N: Was that the only time you saw him?

W: I can't remember...I think he was once at my house. I think he just popped in to say hello..

I think they are talking about a policeman??

Dixon, I think ..

 

[Freya1977]

W: I just thought I'd take him for a beer....

N: Was that the only time you saw him?

W: I can't remember...I think he was once at my house. I think he just popped in to say hello..

I think they are talking about a policeman??

Talking about Dixon

 

[patCee]

I don't know - I don't know - I can't remember - on and on. I'm not an expert - he's not an expert (Dixon).

Shockingly embarrassing. Unbelievable.

How can this happen?

 

[Really?]

Prove it woollies !

Show us yer 'other' reports

 

[zwiebel]

Oh dear. W has just effectively told the court he thinks Roger Dixon's testimony was worthless.

W now saying he has never 'consulted with the accused on what happened that night'.